Activity

The specification doesn't explicitly cover this case, although I agree that the state transition should be as you indicate. The state transition table 2 near 5.8 has an entry for makePersistent but doesn't split out datastore transaction versus optimistic transaction.

For now, we can mark this test case as UNSPECIFIED and document and fix it in maintenance (both the specification and the test case).

Craig L Russell
added a comment - 28/Sep/07 22:34 The specification doesn't explicitly cover this case, although I agree that the state transition should be as you indicate. The state transition table 2 near 5.8 has an entry for makePersistent but doesn't split out datastore transaction versus optimistic transaction.
For now, we can mark this test case as UNSPECIFIED and document and fix it in maintenance (both the specification and the test case).

The specification dated 2007-09-28 has been updated to split the row in the state transitions table so that the returned state in datastore transaction is persistent-clean but in optimistic transaction is persistent-nontransactional.

Craig L Russell
added a comment - 05/Oct/07 18:18 The specification dated 2007-09-28 has been updated to split the row in the state transitions table so that the returned state in datastore transaction is persistent-clean but in optimistic transaction is persistent-nontransactional.
The test case needs to be updated now.

Since the spec was deficient, the branch for test case challenges should be updated to skip this test, and the trunk should be updated to check for persistent-clean for datastore transactions and persistent-nontransactional for optimistic.

Craig L Russell
added a comment - 05/Oct/07 18:19 Since the spec was deficient, the branch for test case challenges should be updated to skip this test, and the trunk should be updated to check for persistent-clean for datastore transactions and persistent-nontransactional for optimistic.